Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Evil Exists, therefore… (Ivan Laurenciano and the Epicurean Paradox)

I saw this post on Facebook the other day. Now, I think this is an attempt to debunk Epicurus’ problem of evil issue, am I right?

If you guys are not familiar with it, well…

It is called The Epicurean Pardox and it goes like this:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?Then he is not omnipotent.Is he able, but not willing?Then he is malevolent.Is he both able and willing?Then whence cometh evil?Is he neither able nor willing?Then why call him God?“

The epicurean paradox is not an argument against the existence of a god per se. Well, we can say that the argument is about the existence of a benevolent, omni-Max God: A benevolent god who is All-Powerful, omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. If you believe that your god is this benevolent omni-Max, then you got a problem with Epicurus.

Ok, so let’s see the issue. A certain Ivan Laurenciano would like to show why skeptics shouldn't be arguing this way and suggested that they need to presuppose the existence of God in order for this attack to work. [ That they need God in order for them argue that there is no God; which would mean that they are wrong... Uh, that's what he said in his Facebook note. ]

Wait a minute there...

Ivan Laurenciano continues, "Now, as a Christian theist, there are two ways to address this: One is, we can take Epicurus’ contentions on a head-on collision and answer him directly how God can allow evil to exist in this world without ceasing to be benevolent (all-good) and omnipotent (all-powerful). The other way to go is, to show why the skeptics shouldn’t be arguing this way, and provide a reason why they need to presuppose the existence of God in order for this attack to work. That they need God in order for them argue that there is no God; which would mean that they are wrong.ue that there is no God; which would mean that they are wrong."

According to this, a skeptic should presuppose that God exists in order for the Epicurian Paradox to work. What Ivan is trying to suggest here is that I should believe first that a 4-angle triangle exists before I could question the existence of a 4-sided triangle. WHAT? Too much caffeine?

Here's a tip Mr. Laurenciano: If you want to disprove Epicurus, then give us a good reason why we should believe that even with the existence of evil, a benevolent omni-Max god exists.

It is as simple as that.

Ok, so it won't work, now what will a good Christian apologist will do next?

Distort the meaning of the word evil.

According to Ivan Laurenciano, “It is evident how Epicurus pressed his argument using the problem of evil in this universe." Ivan continues, "As an atheist though, what does he mean here by “evil”? “Evil” assumes morality, a standard of good and bad. But in the atheistic platform, where there is no ultimate Lawgiver, what is morality?"

Weird.

So as an atheist, what do I mean of the word "evil?"

According to the dictionary...

When an atheist talk about evil he can use a secular definition of it, which doesn't require a supernatural Law Giver. For example, I can define evil as something that can harm a person or society both physically and mentally. Also, by definition, when we talk about evil it can even be used on issues that doesn't talk about morality. - That is why we have what we called "natural evil." Natural evil is defined as evil for which “no non-divine agent can be held morally responsible for its occurrence.” Earthquakes, forest fires, typhoons - there are examples of natural evil.

Going back in defining evil, Ivan continued, "Atheism cannot account for morality. In it, we can have no definitive terms as to what is good and what is evil. What is good for you may not be good for me. What is bad to you may not be bad for me. We are left to decide for ourselves which is which. If a man can increase the value of his survival by lying, stealing or killing, why wouldn’t he do so? On what objective basis should it be called evil? By what authority should he be stopped?"

To proved his point, Ivan used a quote from Jean-Paul Sartre. Ivan imposed that "According to Jean-Paul Sartre, an atheist, man is “free, free in every way,” and that “He could do what he liked, no one had the right to advise him, there would be for him no Good or Evil unless he thought them into being.” Here, we find a description of freedom and morality that is consistent with the worldview of the godless. We are radically unrestricted. Good and evil is just our imagination, our preferences, for there is no Judge or universal and objective Authority to tell us what ought to be and what ought not to be."

Now, let me quote what Sartre said.

He was free, free in every way, free to behave like a fool or a machine, free to accept, free to refuse, free to equivocate; to marry, to give up the game, to drag this death weight about with him for years to come. He could do what he liked, no one had the right to advise him, there would be for him no Good or Evil unless he thought them into being.

The quote came from his book L'âge de raison (The Age of Reason - 1945) and I think before Ivan Laurenciano quoted this, he should have bothered himself to do some research regarding the philosophy that Sartre was carrying.

Sartre was an existentialist and he believed that humans are free and freedom has something to do with choices. Since life is absurd (thanks for this Camus) and doesn't have any inherent meaning, it is up to you to create one. Your freedom (and choices) will make it possible. That is what that quote is all about.

So let's go back to morality.

Ivan continues, "Atheism cannot account for morality. In it, we can have no definitive terms as to what is good and what is evil. What is good for you may not be good for me. What is bad to you may not be bad for me. We are left to decide for ourselves which is which. If a man can increase the value of his survival by lying, stealing or killing, why wouldn’t he do so? On what objective basis should it be called evil? By what authority should he be stopped? This is a dog-eat-dog world, after all. "

Is Ivan talking about atheism or moral relativism? Not all atheists are a moral relativist, and come on... even without a god, you can still have a definition of what is good and what is evil. There are a lot of options for secular ethics - the normativity of social contracts, some form of attribution of intrinsic moral value, intuition-based deontology, or cultural moral relativism. The Golden Rule is a good example - its value rest on its logical consequences, and not on divine rewards and punishments.

Let us take his Hitler example...

Take Adolf Hitler for example: if every individual can uphold his own moral code, then as upsetting as it is, we cannot judge Hitler for he has only done what is right in his own eyes (Judges 17:6). One can try to argue that what is right and wrong is decided by the majority. But if that’s the case, again, we still cannot judge Hitler since he was able to convince majority of his people that what he was doing is right. I find this to be bizarre, that an unjustified opinion can become “right” just because a group of people agreed that it is “right.” An absurdity can be held by many, but it will remain for what it really is: an absurdity.

But then again. Let us use what Confucius have said thousands of years ago.

"Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state." - Analects 12:2

Based on what was written in the Analects, I can judge Hitler in the reason that if I don't want people to hurt me, then I must not hurt other people. That's it! That's not an absurdity. Even if the majority believes what Hitler have said, it would still fall to the account that if I don't want myself and my family to be placed inside a gas chamber, then I don't have to do the same thing to another people.

Also, let me put this on Ivan's head.

Hitler did not convinced the majority. No, the majority already have that biased opinion on a certain race and what Hitler did was just to play on it. A little idea of European history will not hurt @ Ivan Laurenciano.

"Thus, it will never be clear what Epicurus means when he mentions the word “evil” since in his worldview, no definition of evil can be true for all people at all times. Therefore, we can dismiss his argument as unsound because of the false or unjustifiable premise. Atheists can only account for morality if they are going to hop in on the Christian worldview; a worldview that can make sense of an absolute standard of good and evil. But left on their own belief system, it doesn’t make sense to label something as universally evil. They are forced to borrow from the biblical worldview." - another winner from Ivan Laurenciano.

So what is not clear from Ivan Laurenciano? Ah... how Epicurus defines the word evil.

Ok...

There are very few surviving fragments of what Epicurus has taught in his time, and the said quote? It really came from the Christian theologian Lactantius. So, does Lactantus talking about moral evil when he quoted Epicurus?

Since it was really the Christian Lactantus who quoted this, should we look at the word "evil" in the Christian perspective?

The more I look at it, what I see here is just Ivan Laurenciano trying to "go around the bush" to divert Epicurus's issue. Whether the word "evil" here means "natural" or "moral" is not the issue @ Ivan. The issue that you are trying to ignore here is why an omni-Max god, who has all the omni-powers, have failed to stop and contain evil.

Ivan Laurenciano have failed miserable (even with all that 6 biblical verses he mentioned) to address the Epicurean Paradox.

a.) He failed to give us a good reason why ethics must be defined based on a Christian worldview.

b.) He failed to give us a good justification why evil must always have a supernatural agent.